Who is more culpable in the Gold Star Family issue?

2016-08-01T19:18:29-04:00

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 1 at 2016 7:20 PM

2016-08-01T19:20:04-04:00

I think the DNC convention was more culpable in this case 1SG Patrick Burke.
I saw the entire Republican convention on CSPAN and thought it was fairly well conducted. There were some speakers who went after Hillary Clinton but they tended to focus on what she has done or not done in the Benghazi case.
I saw some of the DNC convention and watched Mr. Khizr Khan talk after the video about his son who was killed in action. I was disgusted that Mr. Khan used the death of his son who was killed in 2004 to verbally attack Donald Trump in his speech.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 7:21 PM

2016-08-01T19:21:24-04:00

I haven't heard anything about this. Definitely not something that should be used as a political gain or compromise. Bad taste - again, I haven't read anything on this, yet.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Aug 1 at 2016 7:32 PM

2016-08-01T19:32:56-04:00

Don't think it was intended as bait. More likely they thought the speech by Mr. Khan would serve as an unassailable critique of Trump and his unamerican ideas.

Never in Hillary's wildest dreams did anyone think that Trump would be so incredulous as to compare his "sacrifices" to that of a gold star family.

Response by SSgt Christopher Mortell made Aug 1 at 2016 7:38 PM

2016-08-01T19:38:38-04:00

I like the way you posed the question because it gets beyond the knee-jerk reactions. That said, playing politics with GIs and their families is, regrettably, nothing new. With that in mind, the Clinton campaign is going down a well-trodden and extremely distasteful path. Trump got baited and he fell for it. In addition to what he said, the fact that he doesn't know when to keep his yap shut is disturbing. I don't blame the Khans. They got played but it probably seemed like an honor. Also, they can say what they want when and where the want. I blame a the media and cynical, self-serving, corrupt process and a lack of sound, moral judgement on both sides.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 1 at 2016 7:40 PM

2016-08-01T19:40:33-04:00

Who is more culpable? The father of CPT Kahn who used his son's sacrifice for a political agenda. Because he supports Clinton? Because he has some other agenda? There is evidence that he may have been acting to promote an agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 7:43 PM

2016-08-01T19:43:08-04:00

All Trump had to do was acknowledge their loss and say he respectfully disagrees with the message. He passed on an opportunity to look compassionate and respectful, that said... why should this issue be any different from all the others? Trumps brand is all about arrogance and self aggrandizement.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Aug 1 at 2016 7:57 PM

2016-08-01T19:57:18-04:00

It was bait, anyone who is following this election would know Trump would bite on it. But why didn't Trumps team stop him and remind everyone that Hillary has already called a Benghazi Mom a liar...

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Aug 1 at 2016 8:02 PM

2016-08-01T20:02:33-04:00

Trump, hands down.

You know, I really don't care about Mr. Khan's issues. His son died serving our country, honorably. In the past, we've had parents protest, like Cindy Sheehan who camped outside of George W.'s ranch. He was asked about it on Aug. 11, 2005, and said everything that he needed to say. He said what Trump should have said. He didn't address that he thought she was a nutcase or a kook, he honored the sacrifice that her son made and acknowledged her pain.

That's all Trump had to do. Instead, he attacked the parents of a dead soldier who are acting on their pain.

https://youtu.be/IBjFroCurv4?t=39

George W. Bush Takes A Question On Cindy Sheehan - 8/11/2005

In Crawford Texas.

Response by SPC Michael Griggs made Aug 1 at 2016 8:16 PM

2016-08-01T20:16:23-04:00

Is there an all of the above option? Kahn opened himself up to criticism when he spoke at the DNC. Trump should have let one of his supporters deal with Mr. Kahn, and maybe even with a little more tact.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 8:36 PM

2016-08-01T20:36:13-04:00

It's all in Donald Trump. He is a thin skinned moron who will retaliate when he feels something negative is said about him. He doesn't have the temperament to be president.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 9:41 PM

2016-08-01T21:41:11-04:00

Trump aside, I think it's important to commend the two parents of the fallen soldier. They've acted with restraint and dignity that I myself could never have maintained.

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Aug 2 at 2016 4:39 AM

2016-08-02T04:39:19-04:00

He lost a son, we lost a brother and if put in the same situation of responding to his issue each and every one of us would have simply said "Sir, I am so sorry for your loss." The political aspects of Mr. Khan's statements aside we honor families whose loved ones have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 2 at 2016 6:44 AM

2016-08-02T06:44:20-04:00

It is unfortunate the everything must be turned into a political attack including the death of an Army Officer in Iraq 12 years ago. There are a few facts that I do not believe are in dispute that demonstrate the sheer folly of the Khan speech/story:

1. Trump did not send their son to war 12 years ago. That was Bush with the backing of Clinton (and Congress) by an actual vote to go to war.
2. Captain Khan volunteered to serve and to accept the risks entailed in that service. An honorable act.
3. Trump has never met or heard of the Khan family or their son or his death/sacrifice nor has he ever said anything about the family prior to this incident
4. Trump proposed a temporary ban on muslims that from some countries/areas that vetting is very difficult or impossible.

How Trump became the target of their anger is purely political. Bush or Clinton would have been better targets and more justifiable targets. For those willing to look at this honestly the Khan's simply used their sons death to launch a political attack at someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with his death. It is purely political theater for the media. Trump saying anything negative at all about the attack has come to mean he is going after the family. The family went after him in a very personal and direct and unjustified way.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Aug 2 at 2016 10:50 AM

2016-08-02T10:50:43-04:00

1SG Patrick Burke All parties should be ashamed. They devalued the death of an American Soldier, nothing more. shame on all of them for this behavior.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 11:42 AM

2016-08-02T11:42:41-04:00

People are accountable for what they say and do.
Trump said what he said. Now he is reaping the outcome.

Undoubtedly the DNC was utilizing the Khans as a political tool and had "suggested" the inclusion of certain items in Mr Khan's speech. Everybody knows that already. We also saw that Mr Khan's words were heartfelt. We also saw (if you could stomach watching all that - political conventions are pretty painful unless you are really a political junkie) just how disingenuous the DNC was trotting the Khans out there, judging by the treatment that other national security-type figures received that same night just minutes later.

Trump's penchant for commenting immediately on EVERYTHING people say will be his undoing.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Aug 2 at 2016 2:47 PM

2016-08-02T14:47:39-04:00

Trump for losing his composure and lacking any tact. Mr. Kahn's point was a statement against Mr. Trump's proposed ban on immigrants of the Muslim faith. That is a major issue of this election and a proposed policy by a candidate. They were voicing their opposition to his proposed policy, which in their view, contradicts the principles of freedom that this country is founded on. The fact that they lost a son in the service of our country only exemplifies their opposition to a policy that discriminates against their religion, in a country in which we are free from religious persecution. Sure it was calculated by the Clinton campaign, and the outcome was exactly what they were anticipating. Baited-yes. Taken hook, line, and sinker.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 3 at 2016 10:29 AM

2016-08-03T10:29:57-04:00

I would have chosen the first two choices, if that were an option.

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Aug 3 at 2016 3:15 PM

2016-08-03T15:15:54-04:00

Considering MR Khan is a lawyer, and knew he was baiting Mr Trump into a no win situation, he knew fully well what was happening, he may be a "Gold Star" parent he is however NOT acting as such he is acting as an agent for Hillary.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 4 at 2016 10:57 AM

2016-08-04T10:57:37-04:00

He should know better by now because Clinton and ilk are willing to doing anything at this point.

Response by MAJ Michael Sjostrom made Aug 4 at 2016 1:43 PM

2016-08-04T13:43:33-04:00

All three parties are wrong. The Clinton campaign, specifically Hillary, for using this family's pain of loss for a political stunt (oh BTW, she still has not apologized from her actions in Bengahzi and has even doubled down to say, "what difference does it make now"), the family whose patriarch is a lawyer with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Trump for his callous response to a family who lost their son 12 years ago. One fact that does not seem to be apparent to the Clinton campaign is that Trump did not send CPT Khan to war, that happened under Bush with Hillary and Congress supporting. Further, Trump's proposal to suspend Muslim immigration is no different than what Pres Carter did during and following the Iran Hostage Crisis. Not necessarily a Trump fan, but people need to put emotions aside and review policy proposals from either party based on their merit (or lack of) - explore the humanity and, or feasibility.